| Revision as of 16:56, 12 December 2006 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits Regarding your comment on my talk page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:30, 10 June 2008 edit undoMathchem271828 (talk | contribs)201 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now == | |||
| Sorry to bother you, but as an ] things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion ]. ] 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I want to make it clear to any one who might browse my talk page that I had nothing to do with the current status of that page. I tried to put it back to where it was about the science and failed because other users wanted to make it about religion and ID, which obviously aren't science. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Your eforts on the Schaefer page missed me as I was busy doing other things and anyway I am on the other side of the world and do things at different times. I was in the Schaefer group in 1990 on sabbatical and collaborated with him for several years after that. I think I have published 9 papers with him. I respect his science greatly and do not agree with him in any respect on religion. Please e-mail me from my user page and let us talk about him off wiki for a while. It is too late at night here now for more. --] 11:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your statement about "slowing radiational cooling" just doesn't fit the physics. Most of all it implies that Earth still cools, just at a "slower" rate. In contrast Earth isn't cooling, but is in a (quasi) equilibrium between absorbed and emitted radiation. I'd be glad to discuss the physics with you further, but the bit about "slowing radiational cooling" needs to go. ] 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What you said doesn't make a bit of sense. If you want to revert this then discuss it on the talk page more. ] 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, let's move it to the Global Warming talk page where others can join in. ] 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Concerning citation == | |||
| Yes, as long as everything is cited correctly that's fine. ] 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sure that'd be great. --] | |||
| == Regarding your comment on my talk page == | |||
| Regarding your comment on my talk page, among other things you may want to read ]. Furthermore where there are few scientists who have those beliefs and whether they should be "FORGIVEN" for them isn't relevant- indeed even keeping them out of article as "forgiveness" would be a violation of ]. ] 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:30, 10 June 2008
Global warming
Your statement about "slowing radiational cooling" just doesn't fit the physics. Most of all it implies that Earth still cools, just at a "slower" rate. In contrast Earth isn't cooling, but is in a (quasi) equilibrium between absorbed and emitted radiation. I'd be glad to discuss the physics with you further, but the bit about "slowing radiational cooling" needs to go. Raymond Arritt 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- What you said doesn't make a bit of sense. If you want to revert this then discuss it on the talk page more. Mathchem271828 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let's move it to the Global Warming talk page where others can join in. Raymond Arritt 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Concerning citation
Yes, as long as everything is cited correctly that's fine. JoshuaZ 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)